← All Phrases

“Section 4(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 4Section 4(1)134 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 4(1) is Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (431 ITR 1), cited in 999 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 4(1)

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
999
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

Judgments citing Section 4(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and consequently the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub- section 4(1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6974/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

DTVSV Act. The refund in the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant declarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has expressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether direct or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6973/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

DTVSV Act. The refund in the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant declarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has expressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether direct or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6972/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.) and Amicus CuriaeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

DTVSV Act. The refund in the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant declarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has expressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether direct or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

Ascendas Panvel Ftwz Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the above terms

ITA 712/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 3(12)Section 80

proviso to sub-section (4) of section 3 and sub-section (1) of section 4, including a Free Trade and Zone. (iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and upon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements, the Government

Ascendas Panvel Ftwz Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 3(12)Section 80

Free Trade and 13 ITA No.701/Mum/2025 and others Ascendas Panvel FTWZ Private Limited Warehousing Zone, and includes an existing Special Economic Zone. (iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and upon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements

Ascendas Panvel Ftwz Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 701/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 3(12)Section 80

Free Trade and 12 ITA No.701/Mum/2025 and others Ascendas Panvel FTWZ Private Limited Warehousing Zone, and includes an existing Special Economic Zone. (iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and upon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements

Suresh Kumar, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-4, Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain,CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 28Section 56

annum additional amount on the market value for a period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act upto the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier ... annum on the market value of the land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of the award of the Collector or to the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In other

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC), two principles deductible from section 4(1) are: (i) that the tax is levied on the total income of the assessee and (ii) each previous years is a distinct unit of time

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R
Section 250

source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this Act." 4.1.1 On perusal of Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, it is obvious that in the year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of investments in property made ... made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year, unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary, authorizing income of a period other than the previous year under consideration

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

Section 4 of the Act which creates a charge on the total income of an Assessee and it lays down in Section 4(1) of the Act that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. The DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

explain as to why their ex factory prices remain static. Since we are not upholding and applying the ex factory envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioners orders.” Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-assessee. We have heard

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2614/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

explain as to why their ex factory prices remain static. Since we are not upholding and applying the ex factory envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioners orders.” Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-assessee. We have heard

Belathur Srinivasaiyengar Rangaiyengar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Lokanath S., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 44A

schedule EI of the Return. 10.2 Further the Chapter-II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contend with “basis of charge”. As per section 4(1) of the Act “where any Central Act enacts that income tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ganesh Jagaji Modi, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and

ITA 79/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner's orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ganesh Jagaji Modi, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Ganesh Modi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

Section 4 of the Act which creates a charge on the total income of an Assessee and it lays down in Section 4(1) of the Act that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1394/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

Section 4 of the Act which creates a charge on the total income of an Assessee and it lays down in Section 4(1) of the Act that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income